word (yoh·nahʹ) is applied to both the dove and the pigeon. Similarly, in English the distinction between the two birds is not sharply defined, although the name pigeon is usually applied to the larger types and especially to those that are domesticated and thus nonmigrating. Like the dove, the pigeon is a stout-bodied, short-legged bird with smooth and compact plumage.

As a rule, Bible translations render the Hebrew yoh·nahʹ as “pigeon” only in texts involving sacrifices, in which “turtledoves” (Heb., tohr) are also regularly mentioned. The expression “male pigeons” (“young pigeons,” AV, RS) in Hebrew is literally “sons of the dove.” Along with turtledoves, pigeons were acceptable for sacrificial use in burnt offerings (Lev. 1:14); a pair could be presented by those too poor to afford a female lamb or kid for a guilt offering (5:5-7); a pigeon (or else a turtledove) as a sin offering was to accompany the offering of a young ram in a woman’s purification rites following delivery of a child, or, lacking the ability to present the ram, “two male pigeons” were acceptable (12:6-8) (as was the case in Mary’s purification following the birth of Jesus; Luke 2:22-24); and a pair of either pigeons or turtledoves was to be included in the purification offerings of a person of little means who had recovered from a running discharge. (Lev. 15:13, 14, 28, 29) They were also acceptable in connection with the Nazirite’s cleansing from defilement.—Num. 6:10.

While many families among the Jews doubtless had their own pigeons, the expression, “Now if he does not have the means for two turtledoves or two male pigeons,” evidently indicates that they were often purchased for sacrificial purposes.—Lev. 5:11.

The Hebrew term goh·zalʹ, meaning, literally, “young bird or fledgling” (compare Deuteronomy 32:11), used in the account of Abraham’s offering when “Jehovah concluded with Abraham a covenant,” is understood to refer to a “young pigeon.” (Gen. 15:9, 18) This is because of the constant association of the pigeon with the turtledove in sacrifices prescribed in the Law later given to Israel. A pigeon doubtless formed part of the earlier sacrifice by Noah, since that sacrifice included “some . . . of all the clean flying creatures.”—Gen. 8:20.

The provision of the Law in making optional the use of either male pigeons or turtledoves was a helpful arrangement for the Jews in Palestine, inasmuch as most turtledoves migrated from the land during the winter months, while the nonmigratory pigeons were available the year round.

The pigeon is a strong, swift flier, able to reach speeds of over fifty miles (81 kilometers) per hour. Its homing instinct caused it to be used for carrying messages from early times. Unlike human navigators who must use chronometers and sextants to determine their position, homing pigeons almost instantly know from the position of the sun at any time of day which direction to fly, even though released in strange territory hundreds of miles from their homesite. They automatically allow for the movement of the sun across the sky so that the angle of their flight does not err.

As common as chickens in many parts of the earth, pigeons differ from domestic fowl not only in their flying ability but also in their structure and in the fact that they are monogamous. Different from the rooster, the faithful male pigeon aids the female in building the nest and in incubating the eggs. Pigeons differ from all other birds in their distinct manner of feeding their young with “pigeon’s milk,” a curdlike substance produced with in the parents’ crop. Young pigeons, called “squabs,” are commonly used as food in many lands.

PIHAHIROTH

(Pi·ha·hiʹroth).

The last camping site of the Israelites before crossing the Red Sea. (Num. 33:7, 8) After having encamped at “Etham at the edge of the wilderness” (Ex. 13:20) Moses received instructions from Jehovah God to “turn back and encamp before Pihahiroth between Migdol and the sea in view of Baal-zephon.” (Ex. 14:1, 2) If the sites of Migdol and Baal-zephon were known today the identification of Pihahiroth would not be difficult. This is not the case, however, and attempts at linking their names, as well as that of Pihahiroth, with certain localities along Egypt’s eastern frontier have been varied and quite inconclusive. For this reason certain other geographical requirements contained in the account itself seem to present the soundest basis for obtaining some idea of the location of Pihahiroth.

Pihahiroth was near the Red Sea and at some point where the only route of escape from the advancing Egyptian forces would be through the sea itself. The sea at that point would also have to be of sufficient depth to allow for the waters to be “split apart” to form a passage through “the midst of the sea,” with the waters forming a “wall” on both sides. (Ex. 14:16, 21, 22) No site N of the Gulf of Suez could adequately provide these requirements. It is true that many modern scholars favor the theory of a crossing in the shallow Bitter Lakes region, which begins about fifteen miles (c. 24 kilometers) N of Suez. This view, however, is accompanied either by a denial of the miraculous nature of the crossing (claiming that the crossing was only through a marsh or swamp) or by the idea that the northern end of the Red Sea anciently ran up into the Bitter Lakes region and that the waters there were of much greater depth at that time, whereas archaeological evidence is that there has been very little change in the water level from ancient times.

For this reason the suggestion advanced by earlier scholars (of the past century) still seems to be that which meets best the requirements of the Bible history. They associate Pihahiroth either with the plain lying between Jebel Atakah and Jebel el Galala or with the narrow strip of that plain running along the southeastern foot to Jebel Atakah, about twelve miles (19 kilometers) SE of Suez. They suggest a crossing starting from the promontory called Ras Atakah and leading across the seabed to the vicinity of the oasis Ayun Musa on the opposite shore. The seabed in this section descends quite gradually from either shore due to shoals that run out nearly two miles (3.2 kilometers) from either side. The maximum depth of water near the middle of this trajectory is about fifty feet (c. 15 meters). The distance from shore to shore is about six miles (c. 10 kilometers) allowing ample space for the possibly three million Israelites to be traversing the seabed while, at the same time, the military forces of Pharaoh were also making their way through the miraculously provided passage in an effort to overtake the Israelite host.—See EXODUS (Route of the Exodus).

This view coincides generally with the tradition handed down by Josephus, Jewish historian of the first century C.E., that the Israelites prior to the crossing were ‘shut up in a narrow place between impassable mountains and the sea.’ (Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, chap. XV, par. 3) A ‘turning back’ of the Israelite nation from Etham to the place described above would also harmonize well with Jehovah’s forecast that Pharaoh would say of them, “They are wandering in confusion in the land. The wilderness has closed in upon them.” (Ex. 14:3) This would hardly be true of locations N of Suez. The location of Pihahiroth in the vicinity of Jebel Atakah would likewise allow for Pharaoh’s forces to advance rapidly on the fleeing Israelites by a regularly traveled route from Memphis (the likely capital of Egypt at that time) to the Sinai Peninsula.—Ex. 14:4-9.

While satisfying the geographical requirements, such location of Pihahiroth must be viewed as only tentative, dependent on possible future confirmation.

[Map on page 1310]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

GULF of SUEZ

Where Israel May Have Crossed

Figures indicate present depth of water, in feet

SINAI PENINSULA

EGYPT

Suez

Jebel Atakah

Gulf of Suez

Pihahiroth (?)

PILATE

Roman governor of Judea during Jesus’ earthly ministry. (Luke 3:1) After Herod the Great’s son Archelaus was removed from being king over Judea, provincial governors were appointed by the emperor to rule the province, Pilate evidently being the fifth of these. Tiberius appointed him in 26 C.E., and his rule lasted ten years.

Little is known of Pontius Pilate’s personal history. Some suggest that his clan name Pontius indicates a relationship to C. Pontius Telesimus, a prominent general of the Samnite people in a mountainous section of southern Italy. Pilate, his cognomen or family name, may indicate descent from a military man if the name comes from the Latin pilum, meaning “javelin.” Or it may identify him as a freed slave or a descendant of one if it derives from the Latin pileus, a cap usually worn by slaves who were given their freedom. The only period of his life to receive historical notice is that of his Judean governorship. The one inscription known bearing his name (and that of Tiberius) was found in 1961 at Caesarea, the seat of Roman government in Judea.

As the emperor’s representative, the governor exercised full control of the province. He could impose the death sentence and, according to those endorsing the view that the Sanhedrin could pass the death sentence, the governor’s ratification had to be obtained by that Jewish court for such sentence by them to be valid. (Compare Matthew 26:65, 66; John 18:31.) As the official residence of the Roman ruler was at Caesarea (compare Acts 23:23, 24), the main body of Roman troops was stationed there, with a smaller force garrisoned at Jerusalem. Customarily, however, the governor resided at Jerusalem during festival seasons (such as at Passover time) and brought up military reinforcements with him. Pilate’s wife was with him in Judea (Matt. 27:19), this being possible due to an earlier change in Roman governmental policy concerning governors in dangerous assignments.

Pilate’s tenure of office was not a peaceful one. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Pilate made a bad start as to his relations with his Jewish subjects. He sent Roman soldiers bearing standards with images of the emperor on them into Jerusalem at night. This move provoked great resentment; a delegation of Jews traveled to Caesarea to protest the presence of the standards and call for their removal. After five days of discussion, Pilate sought to frighten the petitioners with the threat of execution by his soldiers, but their determined refusal to yield caused him to accede to their request.—Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, chap. III, par. 1.

Philo, a Jewish writer of the first century C.E. in Alexandria, Egypt, describes a somewhat similar act by Pilate evoking protest, this time involving gold shields bearing the names of Pilate and Tiberius, which shields Pilate placed in his quarters at Jerusalem. A Jewish appeal went to the emperor at Rome, and Pilate was ordered to remove the shields to Caesarea.—De Legatione ad Gaium, XXXVIII.

Josephus lists yet another disturbance. To construct an aqueduct to bring water into Jerusalem from a distance of about twenty-five miles (c. 40 kilometers), Pilate used money from the temple treasury at Jerusalem. Large crowds clamored against this act when Pilate made a visit to the city. Pilate sent disguised soldiers to mix in with the multitude and, at a signal, to attack them, resulting in deaths and injuries among the Jews. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, chap. III, par. 2; Wars of the Jews, Book II, chap. IX, par. 4) Apparently the project was carried through to completion. This latter conflict is often suggested as the occasion when Pilate ‘mixed the blood of Galileans with their sacrifices,’ as recorded at Luke 13:1. From this expression it appears that these Galileans were slain right in the temple area. There is no way of determining if this incident relates to that described by Josephus or is a separate occasion. However, since the Galileans were subjects of Herod Antipas, the district ruler of Galilee, this slaughter may have been at least a contributing factor in the enmity existing between Pilate and Herod up until the time of Jesus’ trial.—Luke 23:6-12.

TRIAL OF JESUS

On Nisan 14, 33 C.E., at dawn, Jesus was brought by the Jewish leaders to Pilate. As they would not enter the Gentile ruler’s premises, Pilate went out to them and inquired as to the charge against Jesus. The charges made included subversion, advocating nonpayment of taxes and that Jesus made himself a king rivaling Caesar. Told to take Jesus and judge him themselves, his accusers replied that it was not lawful for them to execute anyone. Pilate then took Jesus into the palace and questioned him as to the charges. Returning to the accusers, Pilate announced that he found no fault in the accused. The accusations continued and, upon learning that Jesus was from Galilee, Pilate sent him to Herod Antipas. Herod, chagrined at Jesus’ refusal to perform some sign, subjected him to mistreatment and ridicule and returned him to Pilate.

The Jewish leaders and people were again summoned and Pilate renewed his efforts to avoid sentencing an innocent man to death, asking the crowd if they wanted Jesus released in accord with the custom